These
five consolidated cases pertain to Freedom of Information Act
requests by assorted media and non-profit organizations,
mainly seeking any memoranda prepared by former Federal
Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey about his
conversations with President Donald Trump. On February 2,
2018, this Court granted a partial Motion for Summary
Judgment in favor of Defendants FBI and Department of
Justice, holding that the Government was not required to
disclose the Memos. See Cable News Network, Inc. v.
FBI, 2018 WL 692921 (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2018). Defendants
now seek to get rid of the little that remains: requests from
a group of reporters and organizations (collectively, USA
Today) and from Freedom Watch, Inc. for documents related to
the memos about Trump and for any memos by Comey (or related
documents) about other specific prominent figures. Finding
that a valid exemption again shields most of the information
from release, the Court will largely grant the Motion.

I.
Background

As the
prior Opinion provides the full background, id. at
*1-2, the Court only briefly recites some essential facts
here. On May 9, 2017, the President fired Comey as Director
of the FBI. Id. at *1. One week later, Acting
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as
Special Counsel to investigate “(i) any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the
investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope
of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).” Id. at *5
(quoting DOJ Order No. 3915-2017 (May 17, 2017)).

The day
before Mueller was appointed, the New York Times
published a report about an earlier meeting between
then-Director Comey and the President, claiming to rely on a
contemporaneous memo written by Comey. Id. at *5.
Following that story, it soon came out that the former
Director had “[c]reat[ed] written records immediately
after one-on-one conversations with” Trump.
Id. at *1 (citation omitted). With that revelation,
the “Comey Memos” entered the American lexicon
and, subsequently, this Court's docket. Five Plaintiffs
submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and/or DOJ seeking the
Memos. In addition, USA Today and Freedom Watch sought other
records related to the former Director. USA Today requested
from both the FBI and DOJ “[a]ny records reflecting
discussions” between Comey and FBI or DOJ staff
regarding the Comey Memos. Gannett Satellite Info.
Network, LLC v. DOJ, No. 17-1175, ECF No. 9 (Amended
Complaint), ¶ 27. Freedom Watch asked the FBI for all
documents and records that “relate in any way to any
memoranda prepared, written and/or issued by former FBI
Director James Comey concerning Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton, Bill Clinton, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and
President Donald Trump.” Freedom Watch v. DOJ,
No. 17-1212, ECF No. 1, Exh. A at 2. Defendants and the Court
have construed that latter request to include (1) the Comey
Memos themselves; (2) other records that relate to the Memos;
and (3) any Comey-penned memoranda or related documents
concerning Obama, the Clintons, or Flynn. The Government
denied all of Plaintiffs' requests, claiming that release
of any responsive documents would interfere with the Special
Counsel's investigation.

Undeterred,
Plaintiffs separately brought suit, which the Court
consolidated. See Minute Order of July 26, 2017. In
October 2017, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment
only as to the requests for the actual Comey Memos.
See ECF No. 22. In addition to the briefing, the
Court reviewed the Memos themselves in camera,
conducted a sealed, on-the-record ex parte proffer
session with a member of the Special Counsel's Office,
and received an ex parte declaration from the
Government detailing how the Comey Memos related to the
ongoing Russia investigation. CNN, 2018 WL 692921,
at *1, 3. Ultimately, the Court determined that the
Government had carried its burden to show that release of the
Memos “could reasonably be expected to interfere”
with the Special Counsel's investigation, id. at
*7 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)((7)(A)), and “at
least for now, [they would] remain in the hands of the
Special Counsel and not the public.” Id. at
*1.

The
Government now seeks summary judgment on the remaining
portion of Plaintiffs' FOIA suits - namely, documents
related to the Comey Memos (USA Today) as well as Comey
memoranda and related documents concerning other specific
individuals (Freedom Watch). In support of their Motion,
Defendants each filed two public declarations, and the FBI
also sought leave to submit an ex parte declaration,
which the Court granted. See ECF Nos. 45, Exhs. A,
B; 46; Minute Order of February 13, 2018. Additionally, the
Court ordered the Bureau to submit the three withheld pages
for in camera review. See Minute Order of
February 13, 2018. Briefing on these issues is now complete,
though only USA Today responded to the Government's
Motion.

II.
Legal Standard

Summary
judgment may be granted if “the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Holcomb v.
Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A fact is
“material” if it is capable of affecting the
substantive outcome of the litigation. See Liberty
Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248; Holcomb, 433 F.3d at
895. A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
non-moving party. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
380 (2007); Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248;
Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. “A party asserting
that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support
the assertion” by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record” or “showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

FOIA
cases typically are decided on motions for summary judgment.
See Brayton v. Office of U.S. Trade Rep., 641 F.3d
521, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In a FOIA case, the Court may
accept an “agency's affidavits, without pre-summary
judgment discovery, if the affidavits are made in good faith
and provide reasonably specific detail concerning the methods
used to produce the information sought.” Broad
drick v. Exec. Office of the President, 139 F.Supp.2d
55, 64 (D.D.C. 2001). “Agency affidavits are accorded a
presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely
speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of
other documents.” Safe Card Servs., Inc. v.
SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). “Summary
judgment may not be appropriate without in camera
review, ” however, “when agency affidavits in
support of a claim of exemption are insufficiently
detailed.” Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the
President, 97 F.3d 575, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In such a
circumstance, “district court judges [have] broad
discretion in determining whether in camera review
is appropriate.” Id. at 577-78.

III.
Analysis

As with
most FOIA cases, the Court must answer two central questions:
did the Government adequately search for the requested
documents, and did the FBI lawfully withhold three pages of
responsive material? Although USA Today does not contest that
the search was adequate, see Opp. at 1 n.1, because
Freedom Watch chose not to respond at all to the
Government's Motion, the Court is in the odd position of
having to nonetheless consider the search. This is so because
the Court of Appeals recently forbade district courts from
regarding the failure to even respond as a concession.
See Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d
503, 506 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.